My reality
Reality is a wonderful thing which can prevent people from doing things like drink-driving (“So there I was holding onto the steering wheel…”), speeding to “get there faster” and going swimming in crocodile infested creeks.
Now reality, as we all know, is relative. You have your reality and I have my reality. Your reality says that it is reasonable to speed “a bit” because you know the road blindfolded. My reality says that I should drive very carefully because the road has a sharp bends, lighting conditions are bad and I am unfamiliar with the area.
It is possible for our realities to collide. If you want to drive at 110km/h and you are stuck behind me, when I am driving at 80km/h, then you may get very frustrated and make it obvious to me that the sooner I get out of your way the better off I’ll be, regardless of the lack of an overtaking lane and the sheer drop off the side of the road.
What is interesting about this exciting (for you) experience is that we can both wind our ways home, and relate our close encounter from entirely opposite perspectives.
- “I had this absolute lunatic tailgating me on the B234 when there was no way I could pull to the side to let him take over.”
- “I had this absolute idiot in front of me all the way home driving like he had all the time in the world when he knew I wanted to get past.”
What is even more interesting is that, as long as we do not frequent the same pub, both complaints will attract the same number of ooh’s and aah’s, and we will both go home feeling happy and vindicated. It is only if we frequent the same pub that our conflicting points of view may result in words and actions that do neither of us any good.
Our reality
Just as every person perceives reality from their own perspective, so too does every group of people form its own version of reality. Whether that group of people comprises a company, a club, a special interest group or a country, there are unwritten rules that define how that group will evaluate people internal to that society, people external to that society and also things in general.
These unwritten rules define what is valued and what is discarded, what is an accomplishment and what is a failure, what is cool and what is trite and so on. A society can have a holistic view of reality which promotes benign behaviour, or a society can have a highly selective view of reality which encourages behaviour that may appear bizarre to the casual observer.
For Vikings, a nice day out may be spent plundering and pillaging. For classic pop music lovers, a nice day out may be spent listening to someone wondering whether or not this is the real world.
Both the Vikings and the music lovers will feel uplifted and refreshed at the end of the day, because they have both accomplished something of value which they feel is vitally important for the continued well being of “society”. Additionally, both the Vikings and also the classic pop music lovers feel that what they do makes sense, because within each group the thinking of that group is internally consistent.
- “It makes sense to go plundering and pillaging.”
- “It makes sense to listen to someone wondering whether or not this is the real world.”
However for Vikings, music-lover-logic is insanity (you could just plunder and pillage the person who is wondering whether or not this is the real world, instead of listening to him singing). And for music lovers, Viking-logic is insanity (so unreal, man).
In other words, just as your reality may make sense to you, but not to me, so can that which “makes sense” within a society not make sense (i.e not be logically consistent) outside of that society, and vice versa. In fact what “makes sense” within a society is often the absolute opposite of what “makes sense” outside of that society.
This is because, just like people, every society has a specific way of seeing things, i.e. a specific way of fitting together the myriad experiences and artefacts that make our experience of “life” into a coherent whole. And that which “makes sense” is that which fits into this holistic – but localised – pattern.
Reality incorporated
Modern socio-cultural corporations deliberately create their own self-contained “society”. This means that corporations effectively create an internal micro-culture in which the following “reality” applies:
- The company is immutably “good”.
- The company’s products and services are a source of “goodness” to society. (This applies even to products such as gambling services and tobacco.)
- Because the company is “good”, and because the company’s products are a source of “goodness”, therefore it is the moral imperative of the company’s employees to work towards the success of the company and to facilitate the stream of quality products and services which the company “provides” to its customers.
In order to become a “part” of the company, employees are expected to buy into this self-contained “reality” and to live (at least when at work) according to its dictates.
Market buy in
The interaction between the inner company culture and the culture of the customer base depends on the type of product being sold:
- Basic utility products: Products that provide a basic utility value, e.g. bread.
For this class of product there is little or no interaction between the company culture and the consumer base. If I buy a loaf of bread, I have not bought into the company that produced that loaf of bread. I do not have a “relationship” with the bakery.
- Products that combine functionality and an “idea”: Products that combine basic utility value with some thoughtfulness, e.g. fashion clothing.
In addition to providing the protective function of clothing, fashion clothing also makes a statement about the wearer. The fashion clothing communicates the lifestyle intended by the fashion designer, with which the wearer has chosen to self-identify.
For this class of product there is likely to be considerable overlap between the inner company culture (at least that of the design department) and the consumer mentality. Just as employees are socialised to believe that “our clothes are stunning”, so too, when customers purchase the company’s clothes, they do so because they “believe” in the feel-good aura that is advertised by the company.
- Ideation products: Products that primarily consist of a sophisticated idea that is meant to enhance the “life” of the consumer. The idea (e.g. social networking) is “sold” together with an ancillary product (in this case, social networking software) that allows the implementation of that idea.
For this class of product, when the consumer buys the product, they also subconsciously buy into the thinking behind the product. “This is going to work for me.” By extension, the consumer also buys into the company culture that created the idea. In other words the customer agrees, to a certain extent, to perceive reality through the eyes of the company.
In short: Bread does not make a statement. Fashion does make a statement. Social networking is the way in which I make statements.
New technology take-up
The market for innovative technological products is taken to be comprised of five demographics which differ in their thirst for new technology:
- Innovators: People who love innovation for its own sake and who will buy a new product exactly because it’s new.
- Early adopters: People who have an objective understanding of the benefits of the new technology and are willing to give it a go because they think it could work for them.
- Early majority: People who will start using new technology once they see it becoming mainstream.
- Late majority: People who are skeptical about technological innovation but who eventually follow along with the crowd.
- Laggards: People who are positively averse to change.
It is generally understood that if a new technological product has been adopted by the innovators and the early adopters, then it is only a matter of time till the product spreads through the entire market. The early majority, the late majority and the laggards will eventually follow in the path of those who embrace change.
However, the idea-functionality class of the new product will influence the purchasing decisions of the more conservative demographics.
Market take up pattern for ideation products
If a technological innovation has some essentially useful functionality, then although the conservative demographics will be put off by the newness of the product, at the same time they are also attracted by the product’s fundamental usefulness. Therefore once the product enters mainstream use and is no longer quite so new, its usefulness will surpass its novelty and the staid market sector will start buying.
However, for ideation products whose entire sell is that it is “a new way of doing things”, the product may be totally irrelevant to the later demographics.
Although the idea (and associated technology) is useful to the more progressive demographics, that is because their personal culture was already fundamentally in sync with the culture of the company that produced the idea. Therefore the idea is cogent for them and enhances their lifestyle. However, for conservative people to whom the company’s progressive culture is foreign, the idea may have no functional value and may actually be contraindicated.
In other words, an ideation product may be of negative value (“worse than useless”) for people who are external to the culture in which the idea originated. In this case there is no essential value and usefulness for the conservative demographics, because to the contrary, it would be detrimental for this demographic to adopt either the idea or the thinking behind the idea.
Permission to disagree
If you work for a high-tech startup, it would be extremely career limiting to voice your doubts about the wonderfulness of the startup’s products. This is because, although the startup’s founders may be aware of the functional limitations of their products, it is unlikely that they are aware of the limited scope in which their ideas apply.
Therefore for a product whose primary content is the idea inherent in the product, it may be impossible to honestly evaluate the potential of the product, from within the company.
In this case, if the market takes its cues from the optimistic mood and the thinking within the company, it may be following a very distorted view of reality.
